Alibaba, what a waste of food and water on these people who are quick to kill a non believer and allow a believer to murder one or their entire family for the name of some profit or pervert as the story goes and his 14 year old wife?

Kind of sounds like what Mormons do, but they finally caught one of them and he is in prison, crazy old coot.

<quoted text>Only 7 more State buddy..BTW, that was a Congressional attempt at an Amendment, add 7 States and there is no need for Congress.I suggest you read Article V of the US Constitution.

There are 9 states and the District of Columbia that recognize same sex marriage. Six of those states have passed laws in the past 4 years. So it seems like the momentum is to pass laws that allow same-sex marriage, rather than to deny them.

For example, every Republican law maker in the state of Rhode Island supports gay marriage.

Republicans are supporting gay marriage at a rate unseen in the past.

I doubt that a Constitutional Amendment is going to happen at this point.

Opps!!"Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage"http://news.yahoo.com/lesbian-activist-surpri...-“Gay marriage is a lie.”-“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”-“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”-“I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

Do all straight people speak for you? Are there differing opinions re: same-sex marriage within the straight community? Why would you think that all gay people speak with a unified voice?

<quoted text>I don't know if it is so much of a race, as a guarantee. I think if given enough time a majority of the States will adopt a form of same sex union, be it Marriage, or a Civil Union with the same benefits.Now, the other side of the coin is that the SCOTUS makes another sweeping decision forcing all states into compliance, forcing the adoption of same sex marriage. This will cause 31 States which have adopted Constitutional Amendments to strictly define marriage as one man and one woman to feel disenfranchised, at a time when many feel that was as it is. A majority of the country is quite ticked off at Washington DC, and there is a push towards State right's and returning to the republican form of government our founders gave us. This could just be the straw that breaks the proverbial camels back.

My guess is that some of these states will attempt to pass nullification laws--claiming that the Supreme Court has overstepped its boundaries. But to my knowledge, no state has ever successfully been able to maintain a nullification law to override the Supreme Court.

The lawmakers here in TN are trying to pass a law that would allow local and state police to arrest and charge federal agents who might attempt to enforce any gun laws that TN lawmakers believes violates the Constitution. I say, "good luck with that".

I don't think you'll see a rush by all states to fight a sweeping Supreme Court decision.

Like I said earlier; too many states are headed towards legalizing same-sex marriage. Lawmakers in many of these states will take it as a welcome opportunity to have the decision made by someone else. They don't want to piss off those who support same-sex marriage and they don't want to piss off those who don't support it. So they'll just shrug their shoulders and say to their constituents, "It's out of our hands."

<quoted text>There are 9 states and the District of Columbia that recognize same sex marriage. Six of those states have passed laws in the past 4 years. So it seems like the momentum is to pass laws that allow same-sex marriage, rather than to deny them.

Considering that only 1 State- Maine- has passed same sex marriage by popular vote I would hardly call it a "trend change."

But I do agree that public opinion is slowing changing, what you underestimate is the backlash should this change be forced by the SCOTUS. Think about it, Prop 8 was just such a backlash from a decision. So historically this is true. I honestly think had Prop 22 been allowed to stand in California, and Prop 8 was introduced with the only difference being to repeal prop 22, this wouldn't be in the judiciary at the moment. I am certain there were people that really had no interest in the issue that simply voted for Prop 8 to say f-u to the court, as well as this feeling- real or imagined- that this issue is being shoved down their throats.

The same is being seen with the resistance States are giving to "Obama Care." The American public can be very spiteful.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>For example, every Republican law maker in the state of Rhode Island supports gay marriage.

You mean all 5 of them?

Seriously, this is more an exercise in politics. They are in a VERY liberal State, and to vote otherwise would surely ensure their demise.

That would be like a Democrat running as a mouth piece for gun control in Alaska and thinking they stood a chance at being elected.

<quoted text>Do all straight people speak for you? Are there differing opinions re: same-sex marriage within the straight community? Why would you think that all gay people speak with a unified voice?

Like she said, you have to hide behind lies...

BTW, generally it is assumed that homosexuals make up about 4% of the population, straight 96%. So with only 4% you have a limited pool to pull from, I suggest you choose your spokespeople a little more carefully. BTW, her comments were met with HUGE applause, so I would say at least a size-able portion agree with her.

But in all honesty I don't give a damn about the agenda, I just find it funny how quickly you guys will throw someone under the bus.

<quoted text>Considering that only 1 State- Maine- has passed same sex marriage by popular vote I would hardly call it a "trend change."But I do agree that public opinion is slowing changing, what you underestimate is the backlash should this change be forced by the SCOTUS. Think about it, Prop 8 was just such a backlash from a decision. So historically this is true. I honestly think had Prop 22 been allowed to stand in California, and Prop 8 was introduced with the only difference being to repeal prop 22, this wouldn't be in the judiciary at the moment. I am certain there were people that really had no interest in the issue that simply voted for Prop 8 to say f-u to the court, as well as this feeling- real or imagined- that this issue is being shoved down their throats.The same is being seen with the resistance States are giving to "Obama Care." The American public can be very spiteful.<quoted text>You mean all 5 of them?Seriously, this is more an exercise in politics. They are in a VERY liberal State, and to vote otherwise would surely ensure their demise.That would be like a Democrat running as a mouth piece for gun control in Alaska and thinking they stood a chance at being elected.It seems sometimes you really don't think things through.

Well, it would be up to the lawmakers in those states to try to pass an Amendment to the Constitution--not the voters. So, I'm not so concerned about what individual voters might or might not do.

And you seem to forget that Proposition 8 will be five years old come November. And the backlash to that backlash has been the overwhelming support of CA voters who would not likely vote for such a ballot today.

Times have changed considerably. Republican lawmakers at all levels have changed their personal views re: same-sex marriage. And many of these lawmakers DO NOT want to be forced to stand against same-sex marriage. They would welcome the Supreme Court's ability to make a sweeping decision.

<quoted text>Like she said, you have to hide behind lies...BTW, generally it is assumed that homosexuals make up about 4% of the population, straight 96%. So with only 4% you have a limited pool to pull from, I suggest you choose your spokespeople a little more carefully. BTW, her comments were met with HUGE applause, so I would say at least a size-able portion agree with her.But in all honesty I don't give a damn about the agenda, I just find it funny how quickly you guys will throw someone under the bus.

Oh, I see you guys throwing straight supporters of same-sex marriage under the bus all the time. It's hardly gruesome.

And nobody knows exactly how many gay people there are in this country.

Not everyone who participates in homosexual activity thinks of his/herself as gay. Many closeted gays would admit to being gay, even though they have attractions to members of the same gender.

So you're probably not going to get an accurate count anytime soon.

Nevertheless, you can rest assured that most in the LGBT community AND our heterosexual allies do, in fact, support same-sex marriage.

<quoted text>Considering that only 1 State- Maine- has passed same sex marriage by popular vote I would hardly call it a "trend change."But I do agree that public opinion is slowing changing, what you underestimate is the backlash should this change be forced by the SCOTUS. Think about it, Prop 8 was just such a backlash from a decision. So historically this is true. I honestly think had Prop 22 been allowed to stand in California, and Prop 8 was introduced with the only difference being to repeal prop 22, this wouldn't be in the judiciary at the moment. I am certain there were people that really had no interest in the issue that simply voted for Prop 8 to say f-u to the court, as well as this feeling- real or imagined- that this issue is being shoved down their throats.The same is being seen with the resistance States are giving to "Obama Care." The American public can be very spiteful.<quoted text>You mean all 5 of them?Seriously, this is more an exercise in politics. They are in a VERY liberal State, and to vote otherwise would surely ensure their demise.That would be like a Democrat running as a mouth piece for gun control in Alaska and thinking they stood a chance at being elected.It seems sometimes you really don't think things through.

Yes,it seems sometimes you really don't think things through! Sorry OH great one but there have now been 3 states that have passed Marriage equality by popular vote! Now,are you lying or was it an honest mistake on the part of your ignorance? Geez,and we all thought you knew it all! Care to try again?

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>I'm aware there are a number of fake, imposter, sterile, duplicate half of marriage pretendies, but no such thing as a 'ss marriage'.Smile.<quoted text>However, I've never proclaimed myself as half of anything. A genetic chimera has the full DNA of two people, and no epi-marker mistakes like homosexuals. We are however both sexual mutations. Smile.

Oh look KiMare you have a 'pretendie' marriage. It's not generally legal for a three person union. SSM cannot be fake, imposter, duplicate as marriage is what the law says it is... yes that's the reality. When the law says two people are legally married and have a marriage license then they are married... not faking or pretending. Marriage is defined by law and laws are constantly redefined... it's called progress. Unless of course you are referencing marriage to 'God's law' and the Bible, are you? In which case marriage is two-fold, the civil/legal and the religious side. The former is what we're talking about with regards to SSM; the latter is a matter of a person's faith and up to that person's church, not up to general laws.

<quoted text>What's also clear is that he/she has no grasp of logic, or original thought. I'm sure that you noticed the absolute reliance on a Chongo-type insult? This one's a small fry, playing at being an adult..

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>I'm aware there are a number of fake, imposter, sterile, duplicate half of marriage pretendies, but no such thing as a 'ss marriage'.Smile.<quoted text>It's clear you have no argument with the defunct stance of ss couples with marriage.However, I've never proclaimed myself as half of anything. A genetic chimera has the full DNA of two people, and no epi-marker mistakes like homosexuals. We are however both sexual mutations. You however are in denial about it.Smile.

Marram wrote:

<quoted text>So, by your proclamation you have a Lesbian trapped inside of you. If that’s the case then you have an epi-marker mistake, true?

You lied about my last 'proclamation', now you are showing your ignorance by your next claimed 'proclamation' by me.

Look up the difference between a genetic chimera and epi-genetics.

You are by default, admitting you are a sexual defect. Come out. Facing reality bravely is the first step to real life. Admit it.

<quoted text>Oh, I see you guys throwing straight supporters of same-sex marriage under the bus all the time. It's hardly gruesome.And nobody knows exactly how many gay people there are in this country.Not everyone who participates in homosexual activity thinks of his/herself as gay. Many closeted gays would admit to being gay, even though they have attractions to members of the same gender.So you're probably not going to get an accurate count anytime soon.Nevertheless, you can rest assured that most in the LGBT community AND our heterosexual allies do, in fact, support same-sex marriage.

The fact remains, that one of your own has admitted the inherent harm and perverse goals of this farce. All the things you deny.

<quoted text>Oh look KiMare you have a 'pretendie' marriage. It's not generally legal for a three person union.SSM cannot be fake, imposter, duplicate as marriage is what the law says it is... yes that's the reality. When the law says two people are legally married and have a marriage license then they are married... not faking or pretending. Marriage is defined by law and laws are constantly redefined... it's called progress. Unless of course you are referencing marriage to 'God's law' and the Bible, are you? In which case marriage is two-fold, the civil/legal and the religious side. The former is what we're talking about with regards to SSM; the latter is a matter of a person's faith and up to that person's church, not up to general laws.

Nice try socks.

The slut lesbian is not on the marriage license. In fact, I have to cover her one eye when I'm with my wife.

Marriage existed long before any laws of society. The sole purpose of law is to protect the birthplace of society's children. Mating behavior has the strongest impact on marriage. Culture and religion would be next.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. A sterile duplicated half of marriage. It is an insult to intelligence to equate the two.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.